From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Fri May 5 04:02:21 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["21403" "" " 5" "May" "1995" "02:18:18" "EDT" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "494" "JudgeNet Digest #1036 (May 05, 1995)" "^Date:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3) with X.500 id EAA02726; Fri, 5 May 1995 04:02:18 -0400 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3) with SMTP id EAA02721; Fri, 5 May 1995 04:02:17 -0400 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA23479 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Fri, 5 May 95 04:02:15 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA02071 for ; Fri, 5 May 95 03:49:23 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA02676; 5 May 95 02:18:18 EDT (Fri) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9505050218.AA02676 at synchro.com> Date: 5 May 95 02:18:18 EDT (Fri) From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1036 (May 05, 1995) JudgeNet Digest #1036 Fri 05 May 1995 JudgeNet The Beer Judge Digest digest submissions: judge at synchro.com administrative requests: judge-request at synchro.com send cancellations & rank updates to the administrative address messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored FTP Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu in /pub/judge WWW Archives: http://guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu/Beer/Judge Gopher Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu Editor: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publishers: SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery Anti-Prohibitionists may also be interested in LiBeerty: The Libertarian Beer Digest Subscription info: libeerty-request at synchro.com Contents: re: Regional Database Administrators (Jay Hersh) Judging review ("Bob Hall" ) re: rauchbier (Jay Hersh) DMS a flaw? (Jeff Renner) re: Regional Database Administrators (Chuck Cox) A few topics ("Kieran O'Connor") flawed style guideline (Jim Dipalma) Nationals Judging ? (Btalk) Re: Judging Odds and Ends ("C. John Mare") Flames etc (Bill Giffin) Judging: Quality Vs. Quantity (Andrew Patrick) Re: JudgeNet Digest #1035 (May 04, 1995) (Environmental Design and Management) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 09:16:15 EDT From: Jay Hersh Subject: re: Regional Database Administrators While I do not wish to debate the merits of this move I do wish to state that Chuck's taking it upon himself to divide and distribute the database constitutes a usurpation of policy making power that should in all rights belong to the not yet elected BJCC. Are we so desparate to get this moving that we are now usurping our own calls for democracy?? Such a policy decision, ie how the database should be maintained and where is clearly something that should be left to those individuals who we are in th4e process of electing and will shortly have in place. I for one see no pressing need for this to have been done and strongly caution against this or any other decisions being made regarding the structure and operations of the BJCC by anyone other than the soon to be duly elected members of it. JaH (parlimentarian at heart) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 09:31:11 -0400 From: "Bob Hall" Subject: Judging review Al K. wrote: >What if the problem was with judging the beer? Well, then the board would >have to get a bottle of the beer to taste. This is where regional >administration would really help. Given that this procedure (i.e. sending >the beer) would require previous approval from the board, then this would >keep the numbers of "beer sample required" complaints down. >Perhaps also the recipe could be required along with the initial written >complaint and maybe both the judge's and brewer's names kept anonymous >while the board reviewed the beer. Comments? I am all for a judge review system in the BJCP; I am often dismayed at the comments I get back from competitions. I care a whole lot less about scores and ribbons than I do about feedback on my beers. However, I do not think that it is entirely necessary to have a reveiw board taste misjudged beers. Rarely have I had a thoughtfully commented scoresheet misjudge my beer. Most, if not all of the time, a well commented scoresheet indicates a well judged beer. Misjudged beers, which occur all too often on my entries, have no comments at all in the flavor or aroma section, or list the aroma of a Belgian Strong simply as "kind of fruity", or no scores for the subsections. Thus a review process regarding judging need not necessarily taste a beer to compare to the judges statements. Simply observing whether the scoresheet has been filled with helpful comments would probably be enough for almost all cases. Has anyone had a well filled/commented scoresheet that has severely misjudged their beers? Perhaps, instead of only having a review board (which would scare judges into doing a good job), that there also be some sort of educational opportunities, associated with club meetings or with competitions, to demonstrate and encourage proper feedback and judging procedure for judges. Bob Hall bhall at sparc.ecolgy.uga.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 09:21:30 EDT From: Jay Hersh Subject: re: rauchbier Craig Pepin presents some good points. Also note that at various Bamberg pubs both an amber and a dark rauchbier are presented. My on going research into Bavarian Dark beers seems to point out that prior to ~1810 all grains in germany were dried in wood fired kilns (as opposed to indirect drying via heated air) and while not placed directly over the smoke they would all have had a somewhat smoky character. It is my belief that modern day dark "rauchbier" presently sold in Bamaberg bears a direct lineage from these 18th century Bavarian brown beers. JaH ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 95 10:06:09 -0400 From: Jeff Renner Subject: DMS a flaw? In JND 1035, Lee Bussy said > If a judge smells DMS then it is pretty damned obvious > that it is a flaw in a Cream Ale, or most beers fopr > that matter. I'd say that judge was qualified to judge > that category if he pointed that out and reduced > points. I think this is a point open to discussion wrt traditional mid-western American lagers and cream ales. It's been a while since I tasted Schoenling Little Kings cream ales, perhaps the urtyp cream ale, but I grew up in Cincinnati, and when I recently tasted "Hudepohl 14K" (their standard lager), I recognized that "beery" flavor that I remembered from tastes of beer I got as a kid. Part of it appears to be subtle DMS. Others have suggested that this was an expected part of the flavor (aroma?) profile of mid-western beers from the six-row malt and brewing technique. I think that it is to Hudepohl-Schoenling's credit that they have not "cleaned up" their lager to make it more like the bland national brands. I understand from Cincinnati home brewers that it is probably nearly inevitible from their brewhouse equipment and procedures, so maybe they don't have a lot of choice, but I don't find it in their all malt super-premium "Christian Morlein." I have also found it in Huber's Berghoff. When Frankenmuth's German brewmaster Fred Scheer left for Pabst (in China!) for a year, DMS was part of the problems that crept in. I rather liked that flaw, although it's inappropriate in a beer that tries to be German. (I didn't like the diacetyl.) I'm going down to Cincinnati in a week (Mother's Day) and I'll pick up some fresh Little Kings and check for DMS. Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 95 10:41:18 EDT From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: re: Regional Database Administrators Jay Hersh sez... > > While I do not wish to debate the merits of this move I do wish to state > that Chuck's taking it upon himself to divide and distribute the database > constitutes a usurpation of policy making power that should in all rights > belong to the not yet elected BJCC. Our database administration system is unofficial, unapproved, and provisional. If you don't like the way we operate, please don't use our services. Officially, the BJCP is not updating or maintaining their database in any way. In fact, the BJCP does not even have a Program Administrator at this time. We are simply trying to provide an interim service to help keep the BJCP afloat. Feel free to lobby the BJCC (bjcc at bjcp.synchro.com) to administer the program any way you want. Or better yet, volunteer to help. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. A disarmed citizen is an oppressed citizen. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 10:49:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "Kieran O'Connor" Subject: A few topics On food: Of the contest I've judged at only one has not provided food. I think it needs to be provided not only as a thank you to judges who volunteer, but also to help judges who judge a morning and afternoon round from getting tipsy. On evaluating judges: Yes it's a bit of work for the ocmpetition organizer to review sheets, but there are some ways to do it. 1) You could have someone at your comp. who scans sheets as they come in and are recorded--that way you could catch problems right at the comp. 2) You could divide the reading of the sheets after the comp. among a group of people, and flag porr evaluators. 3) You could put in a sheet with comp. results which says "Contact the organizer if there are any problems with your sheet." 4) Any problems would be reported to the regional BJCP. Those are a few ideas--any of which might work. The overall point is that we need the evaluate judges--once you pass the exam, you simply have to "earn" points to advance. Earning the points right now is not a matter of having to do a good job--you get the point either way. On John's Berliner Weisse problem: Lack of agreement among judges is a problem that I try to be congizant of. I understand that we don't want judge sheets to go back on an entry which are basically duplicates. Doing that would be foolish. I think, however, that judges need to talk over the entry after they evaluate it. By tlak over I don't only mean that they agree on the score. I read my score sheet to the other judge(s) to make sure we don't end up with comments like "way too bitter", and "no where near bitter". COmments like these shouldn't occur for the same entry. Kieran ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kieran O'Connor koconnor at mailbox.syr.edu Syracuse, N.Y. USA In vino veritas; in cervesio felicitas. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 95 11:00:41 EDT From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma) Subject: flawed style guideline Hi All, In JudgeNet #1035, Al K. writes: >My point regarding following the competition's guidelines was more in >regards to styles like Porter (where the AHA guidelines say "No roast >barley character.") and Dunkelweizen (where the AHA guidelines say >"Roasted malt and chocolatelike flavors evident."). We know these >to be wrong but until they are corrected, we need to judge beers >according to them. My comments are somewhat off topic with regards to the judging out-of-style beers thread which Al was discussing, but he raised another important issue here: flawed style guidelines. For last year's Weiss is Nice club-only, the homebrew club to which I belong held a tasteoff to determine which entry to send to the club-only. Judging with me that day were two other BJCP judges, both of whom currently hold the rank of National. We got to a dunkelweizen that had all the requisite flavors in exactly the right proportions. Clove phenolic, banana-like esters, a soft, rounded malt character that was *not* roasted or chocolate-like. A complex, beautifully balanced beer, which we all agreed was superb. However, the scores were almost 10 points apart, because we all knew the "chocolate-like maltiness" requirement was a bunch of baloney, and we all gave it varying amounts of credence. One of the other judges had the attitude 'screw the guidelines, we know they're wrong', and he gave the beer the highest score. The other judge felt that even though we knew the guidelines were wrong, that we could not start inventing our own criteria, we had to judge according to the guidelines. He gave the beer the lowest score. I was in between - torn between my belief that the guidelines should be adhered to, and the fact that I knew the beer was absolutely dead-on style, and deserved a score in the 40s. In the end, we decided that the club judging the beers would follow the guidelines, that we really had to send the beer with the best chance of winning forward, so we marked it down accordingly. I was very relieved when it won anyway. This is an example of the kind of controversy that results, even among very experienced judges, when inaccurate guidelines conflict with a beer that is an accurate example of a style. I think the value of guidelines is that they provide a structure and framework against which beers can be objectively assessed. Without such structure, competitions would be decided *totally* on the basis of the judges subjective impressions, without regard for how much brewing skill is involved in meeting a style's parameters, and that is clearly undesirable. However, if adhering to a set of guidelines is going to be meaningful, then they *must* be accurate. The two examples that Al mentioned are not the only flaws and inaccuracies in the current guidelines. One more point, and this ties into the judging out-of-style beers thread. IMHO, one of the reasons why judges seem reluctant to mark down a beer that is very enjoyable to drink but slightly out of style is that it's all too easy to ignore style guidelines when they are known to be inaccurate. Craig Pepin writes: >Which raises one more question. Should the BJCP develop its own style >guidelines, or continue to rely on the imperfect association collections >currently out there? I don't see so it much as starting from scratch, as >enhancing and tweaking what is already available. Availability of such >detailed and expert style guidelines could make the a BJCP sanction of a >competition worth something than just reporting of points. A very good point. Like it or not, the BJCP is now in direct competition with the AHA and its judging program. Anything that *can* be done to make the BJCP better than the AHA program *should* be done, and correcting the obvious deficiencies in the AHA's current guidelines is one such measure. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 11:44:59 -0400 From: Btalk at aol.com Subject: Nationals Judging ? A friend who judged at the Nationals First Round in Connecticut told me he was surprised to hear my named called as a judge. I'm even more surprised !! I had requested and received info about judging at Norwalk, but that is as far as it went. I don't understand how a request for info could be mistaken for a commitment to judge. Does this reflect the AHA's organizational skills? Unfortunately I've deleted email addresses for contacts related to judging this event. I fear that my name will end up on the s***list of no show judges through no fault of my own. I'm lucky that somone who knows me brought this to my attention. Jeez...what a way to get recognition. I just want to set the record straight. Did this happen with anyone else? You better ask around or you may never know. Regards, Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 10:06:36 -0700 (MST) From: "C. John Mare" Subject: Re: Judging Odds and Ends Judging in a fairly large regional competition last weekend I encountered a problem which I feel needs to be addressed. When tasting our first beer, a strong "plasticky" smell emanated from the beer. Suspecting that something foul was afoot, we (3 judges) all smelled the empty glasses to find a strong lingering smell. It turns out that these were "last year's" glasses left over from a previous competition. Also they were a different style (much inferior) to those I had previously encountered. We switched to glass, and all went well (at our table) but other tables continued to use the tainted containers. During "Best of Show" judging, the two of us using glass seldom observed the "defects" identified by the two judges using the plastic containers. I'm sure this had some impact on the judging, especially on the lighter flavoured beers. Does (or should) the BJCP insist on the use of a standard type of plastic container known to be free of odours? Would the use of glass with thorough rinsing between beers be better? What are the guidelines here, and what are the views of others who may have encountered this problem? John Mare, "The Stables Brewery" Tucson, Arizona. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 13:57:30 -0500 From: billg at giffin.iii.net (Bill Giffin) Subject: Flames etc Top of the morning to ye all, People who throw matches should be careful not to get too near the flame. Al says > First of all, I consider myself a pretty good >judge but I don't believe that I could tell the difference between a >1074 OG Traditional bock and a 1080 OG Traditional bock. You don't need to Al they are both doppel bocks. Maybe I am glad you don't judge in NE!! Lee Bussy says > >If a judge smells DMS then it is pretty damned obvious that it is a >flaw in a Cream Ale, or most beers fopr that matter. I'd say that >judge was qualified to judge that category if he pointed that out and >reduced points. > Lee not only haven't you got a clue what beer is, you don't even suspect what beer is. If beer does not have DMS chances are it is not beer! Please read _Malting_and_Brewing_Science_ Vol. 2. If ;you do not have a copy send me a privite E-mail and I will be more then happy to send you copies of the right pages via s-mail. If any one else is confused about DMS and how it relates to beer I will be happy to enlighten you about the wonders of DMS. By the by no you don't get your point back as far as I am concerned ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 21:08:49 -0500 (CDT) From: Andrew Patrick Subject: Judging: Quality Vs. Quantity There's no doubt there's some bad judging going on out there. I have seen it first hand. I may, at times, even have been guilty of it myself. But the thing that scares me even more, is that there just ARENT ENOUGH judges to handle all the entries we are getting these days. I judged FIVE FLIGHTS in LESS THAN 24 HOURS at the Midwest regionals in Kenosha. I did THREE FLIGHTS in a like amount of time at the AHA Nationals/Midwest Region last weekend. That's a lot of beer judging. And I am tired. But I keep doing it, because I know that I am contributing the betterment of beer appreciation in America. I am, right?? But the situation seems to be getting worse and worse now. Numbers of entries keep going up at a rapid rate, while the Beer Judge ranks grow significantly more slowly. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what that means.... Andy Patrick (andnator at mcs.com) Certified Beer Judge; Brewing Instructor-College of DuPage County,IL Founder, HomeBrew U BBS Network: Chicago 708-705-7263, Houston 713-923-6418, Milwaukee 414-238-9074 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 23:11:31 -0500 From: edm at fox.nstn.ns.ca (Environmental Design and Management) Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #1035 (May 04, 1995) > John DeCarlo writes: > > >There was a Berliner Weisse judged at the German Wheat table. I thought it >was darn nice, though not as sour as some bottles I have had. The other two >judges (one more experienced than I, who had also been to Germany many times >and tasted fresh German wheat beers, though not Berliner Weisse there, and the >other a novice judge), thought it was *too* sour. Now, I have to admit to not >being an expert on Berliner Weisse, so I didn't press the point. > This makes me recall the AHA Final roundone year. I was one of four judging wheat beers, and one of the submissions was a Berliner. There was also a weizen doppelbock thing that was closer to a barleywine, some dunkelweizens and some weizens. It was like a best of show round. I had taken the opportunity the previous evening to try a Schulteiss in order to calibrate my palate for the possibility of a Berliner appearing in the contest the next day. I strongly suggest this if at all possible. The sour of a Berliner is a distinct sour all its own, very refreshing and tart. It was interesting to note the difference between the complex Schulteiss and the more simple lactobacillus induced sour in the homebrew. BTW, we found out later that the weizen we sent to the BOS was brewed by Eric Warner, which made all of us who judged that round feel quite confident that we had chosen well. He ought to know how to make one. That brings me to another phenomenom I have encountered. The near anxiety of judges to satisfy themselves that they have chosen the best, after the fact, often manitested by sharing what is left of the winner with other judges who were not at the table in hopes of a reassuring nod. I think this is a healthy desire to let the best beer win, and a suitable lack of overconfidence. Jeff in Halifax ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************